On dosimetric characteristics of detectors for relative dosimetry in small fields: a multicenter experimental study.

Objective. In this multicentric collaborative study, we aimed to verify whether the selected radiation detectors satisfy the requirements of TRS-483 Code of Practice for relative small field dosimetry in megavoltage photon beams used in radiotherapy, by investigating four dosimetric characteristics. Furthermore, we intended to analyze and complement the recommendations given in TRS-483.Approach. Short-term stability, dose linearity, dose-rate dependence, and leakage were determined for 17 models of detectors considered suitable for small field dosimetry. Altogether, 47 detectors were used in this study across ten institutions. Photon beams with 6 and 10 MV, with and without flattening filters, generated by Elekta Versa HDTMor Varian TrueBeamTMlinear accelerators, were used.Main results. The tolerance level of 0.1% for stability was fulfilled by 70% of the data points. For the determination of dose linearity, two methods were considered. Results from the use of a stricter method show that the guideline of 0.1% for dose linearity is not attainable for most of the detectors used in the study. Following the second approach (squared Pearson's correlation coefficientr2), it was found that 100% of the data fulfill the criteriar2> 0.999 (0.1% guideline for tolerance). Less than 50% of all data points satisfied the published tolerance of 0.1% for dose-rate dependence. Almost all data points (98.2%) satisfied the 0.1% criterion for leakage.Significance. For short-term stability (repeatability), it was found that the 0.1% guideline could not be met. Therefore, a less rigorous criterion of 0.25% is proposed. For dose linearity, our recommendation is to adopt a simple and clear methodology and to define an achievable tolerance based on the experimental data. For dose-rate dependence, a realistic criterion of 1% is proposed instead of the present 0.1%. Agreement was found with published guidelines for background signal (leakage).

A protocol for accurate radiochromic film dosimetry using Radiochromic.com.

BACKGROUND: Radiochromic films have many applications in radiology and radiation therapy. Generally, the dosimetry system for radiochromic film dosimetry is composed of radiochromic films, flatbed scanner, and film analysis software. The purpose of this work is to present the effectiveness of a protocol for accurate radiochromic film dosimetry using Radiochromic.com as software for film analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Procedures for image acquisition, lot calibration, and dose calculation are explained and analyzed. Radiochromic.com enables state-of-the-art models and corrections for radiochromic film dosimetry, such as the Multigaussian model for multichannel film dosimetry, and lateral, inter-scan, and re-calibration corrections of the response. RESULTS: The protocol presented here provides accurate dose results by mitigating the sources of uncertainty that affect radiochromic film dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate procedures for film and scanner handling in combination with Radiochromic.com as software for film analysis make easy and accurate radiochromic film dosimetry feasible.

Experimental validation of Monte Carlo based treatment planning system in bone density equivalent media.

Introduction Advanced, Monte Carlo (MC) based dose calculation algorithms, determine absorbed dose as dose to medium-in-medium (Dm,m) or dose to water-in-medium (Dw,m). Some earlier studies identified the differences in the absorbed doses related to the calculation mode, especially in the bone density equivalent (BDE) media. Since the calculation algorithms built in the treatment planning systems (TPS) should be dosimetrically verified before their use, we analyzed dose differences between two calculation modes for the Elekta Monaco TPS. We compared them with experimentally determined values, aiming to define a supplement to the existing TPS verification methodology. Materials and methods In our study, we used a 6 MV photon beam from a linear accelerator. To evaluate the accuracy of the TPS calculation approaches, measurements with a Farmer type chamber in a semi-anthropomorphic phantom were compared to those obtained by two calculation options. The comparison was made for three parts of the phantom having different densities, with a focus on the BDE part. Results Measured and calculated doses were in agreement for water and lung equivalent density materials, regardless of the calculation mode. However, in the BDE part of the phantom, mean dose differences between the calculation options ranged from 5.7 to 8.3%, depending on the method used. In the BDE part of the phantom, neither of the two calculation options were consistent with experimentally determined absorbed doses. Conclusions Based on our findings, we proposed a supplement to the current methodology for the verification of commercial MC based TPS by performing additional measurements in BDE material.

Evaluation of two-dimensional dose distributions for pre-treatment patient-specific IMRT dosimetry.

Background The accuracy of dose calculation is crucial for success of the radiotherapy treatment. One of the methods that represent the current standard for patient-specific dosimetry is the evaluation of dose distributions measured with an ionization chamber array inside a homogeneous phantom using gamma method. Nevertheless, this method does not replicate the realistic conditions present when a patient is undergoing therapy. Therefore, to more accurately evaluate the treatment planning system (TPS) capabilities, gamma passing rates were examined for beams of different complexity passing through inhomogeneous phantoms. Materials and methods The research was performed using Siemens Oncor Expression linear accelerator, Siemens Somatom Open CT simulator and Elekta Monaco TPS. A 2D detector array was used to evaluate dose distribution accuracy in homogeneous, semi-anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic phantoms. Validation was based on gamma analysis with 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm criteria, respectively. Results Passing rates of the complex dose distributions degrade depending on the thickness of non-water equivalent material. They also depend on dose reporting mode used. It is observed that the passing rate decreases with plan complexity. Comparison of the data for all set-ups of semi-anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic phantoms shows that passing rates are higher in the anthropomorphic phantom. Conclusions Presented results raise a question of possible limits of dose distribution verification in assessment of plan delivery quality. Consequently, good results obtained using standard patient specific dosimetry methodology do not guarantee the accuracy of delivered dose distribution in real clinical cases.

Comparison of calculated dose distributions reported as dose-to-water and dose-to-medium for intensity-modulated radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal cancer patients.

Advanced dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy treatment planning can report external beam photon dose 2-sided, in terms of dose-to-medium (Dm) and dose-to-water (Dw). The purpose of our study was to determinate the effect of Dw and Dm reporting modes built in Elekta Monaco treatment planning system on intensity-modulated radiotherapy dose distributions for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. For 13 patients involved in this retrospective study, 2 plans were created: 1 using Dw and another according to Dm reporting mode. Treatment plans were normalized such that 100% planning target volume should be covered by 95% of prescribed dose. Dose-volume constraints were assigned according to international standards. The comparison between dose distributions was performed evaluating quantities important for respective volumes of interest. For target volumes, heterogeneity index and conformity index methodology were used along with the maximum dose concept. Also, for the comparisons over particular organ at risk, maximum dose or mean dose as well as dose-volume concepts were used. For all target volumes and majority of organs at risk, the differences between 2 reporting modes are statistically insignificant, but this is not the case for bony structured organs at risks: mandible and cochlea. It was observed that Dw is higher than Dm with mean difference of 9.91% (p = 0.000009) of the mandible volume covered with 70 Gy. The same trend was observed for left and right cochlea with difference in mean dose of 8.74% (p = 0.037) and 6.87% (p = 0.029), respectively. The comparative analysis of dosimetric parameters in this study shows that the selection of reporting modes in Monaco treatment planning system can produce dose differences up to 15% in high-density volumes such as mandible and cochlea, which might have clinical consequences.

Medical physics in Europe following recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

BACKGROUND: Medical physics is a health profession where principles of applied physics are mostly directed towards the application of ionizing radiation in medicine. The key role of the medical physics expert in safe and effective use of ionizing radiation in medicine was widely recognized in recent European reference documents like the European Union Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (2014), and European Commission Radiation Protection No. 174, European Guidelines on Medical Physics Expert (2014). Also the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been outspoken in supporting and fostering the status of medical physics in radiation medicine through multiple initiatives as technical and cooperation projects and important documents like IAEA Human Health Series No. 25, Roles and Responsibilities, and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists (2013) and the International Basic Safety Standards, General Safety Requirements Part 3 (2014). The significance of these documents and the recognition of the present insufficient fulfilment of the requirements and recommendations in many European countries have led the IAEA to organize in 2015 the Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe, where major issues in medical physics in Europe were discussed. Most important outcomes of the meeting were the recommendations addressed to European member states and the survey on medical physics status in Europe conducted by the IAEA and European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics. CONCLUSIONS: Published recommendations of IAEA Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe shall be followed and enforced in all European states. Appropriate qualification framework including education, clinical specialization, certification and registration of medical physicists shall be established and international recommendation regarding staffing levels in the field of medical physics shall be fulfilled in particular. European states have clear legal and moral responsibility to effectively transpose Basic Safety Standards into national legislation in order to ensure high quality and safety in patient healthcare.